Since our original Posting and Critique of Mr Renner's web page, he has apparently removed his original commentary in favor of one that claims Intelligent Design has a scientific element. This cannot be, for science is logos, what we know by proof, while religion and Intelligent Design are mythos, or faith, things we do not know and cannot prove. You can find his new offering on
Ideacenter.org.
Here, Mr. Renner claims science and religion overlap because both ask the question: "How did we get here?" Both may ask the same question, but no overlap is possible. Science relies on observation and logic. It is testable, ID is neither observation nor logic. It is not testable.

Just after the 2006 election, we had a rush of hope if not confidence. But all that is gone now. Our great leader (great because he leads a great nation) not only ignored the will of the American public, but that of his best advisors, themselves with great track records. Evidently their recomendations do not mesh with his view of the world.

The Clash of Science and Spirituality at the Frontiers of Life.
Lee M Silver
Book Review with commentary

This book is an excellent counterpart to "God's Politics" by Jim Wallis. Each addresses a "natural" divide within and between many cultures of the world. The angles are different. Wallis addresses religion and politics; Silver expounds on the religious controversy over evolution. Wallis seeks to reach out and remove the cultural barriers. Silver is interested in why the world populace is so fearful and wary of the offerings of biotechnology. Like Wallis, Silver has stature in his calling; he is a world renowned molecular biologist. And his book is provocative.

Intelligent Design, ID, descends from Creationism--the literal interpretation of Genesis. What is different about ID, is that it does not explicitly mention God while accepting the fact that the earth is billions of years old. By softening its approach, the movement hopes to deny Evolution its central and rightful place in the center of biology.

Johnson brings a legalistic perspective to the issue of evolution. To the fundamentalists it provides some comfort in that he questions evolution. To the biologist it may be mostly rubbish for reasons we get to below. To those who really want to understand this conflict, Johnson provides a sharp view of how fundamentalism permeates both sides of the argument over Evolution.

Taverne sees through the hypocrisy and fraud inherent in modern Fundamentalism. He gets down to some of the perceptual and expressive ills of humanity. He frames his many arguments around the use and misuse of the scientific method in its effects on many facets of our lives.